Evans challenges a widely held, but far from unanimous, view that
Derrida's early studies of Husserl and Saussure are carefully
argued, scholarly critiques of those thinkers' positions. Evans is
careful to point out that in criticizing Derrida's readings and
interpretations he is not importing a standard to which Derrida owes no
allegiance. Rather, he is applying Derrida's own standard, namely,
that a reading must "recognize and respect" all the
"instruments of traditional criticism," including the canons
of faithful textual interpretation and logical argumentation, not in
order to "protect" a text but to "open" a reading
(p. xv, quoting Derrida).

Evans proceeds by following Derrida's analyses of Husserl and
Saussure with great care and in great detail. The first and larger part
of his book is devoted to Derrida's reading in Speech and Phenomena
of the opening sections of the first of Husserl's Logical
Investigations. The second part of the book is devoted to
Derrida's critique of Saussure in the opening chapters of Of
Grammatology. While Evans does not systematically devote space to
Derrida's other early critical work on Husserl (Edmund
Husserl's "The Origin of Geometry": An Introduction),
themes touched upon therein are discussed by Evans in the course of his
treatment of Speech and Phenomena. This is unsurprising because (1)
Derrida's case against Husserl revolves around Husserl's
purported logocentrism and phonocentrism, and this case rests upon the
reading of the Logical Investigations; and (2) Derrida assumes that
Husserl's earlier and later views are continuous (although,
according to Evans, this view must be qualified in important ways), and
Derrida consequently reads Husserl's early work from the
perspective of later works such as "The Origin of Geometry."
Indeed, many of the themes deconstructive of the Investigations are
found explicitly, according to Derrida, in "The Origin of
Geometry."

There is not sufficient room in a short review to recount
Evans's detailed analyses of Derrida's misreading of important
Husserlian distinctions and texts, and of Saussure's discussions of
linguistic science. Let it suffice to say that Evans's task is a
very difficult one. Not only must he recount the interpretations Derrida
gives, but he must show where they have gone wrong and why. It is
difficult to keep this tangled web of exposition, quotation, double
quotation, and analysis from overwhelming a reader, but Evans does a
very good job of maintaining the clarity and organization of his
exposition throughout. Evans concludes on the basis of these detailed
analyses and carefully framed arguments that "the texts we have
examined fail to live up to their own [critical] standards" (p.
167).

Indeed, they fail so completely that Evans must consider the
possibility--argued by some--that Derrida's "critique" is
a parody or a satire and that his invocation of logical standards is
ironic, a device by which to set up the parody which follows. While
Evans recognizes that he cannot thoroughly disprove this suggestion, he
nevertheless rejects it. Any attempt, he argues, to read Derrida's
critical works as parody robs them of their deconstructive force. If
they are parodies, they do not genuinely undercut the metaphysical
tradition with its commitments to presence, logocentrism, and
phonocentrism at all; consequently they fail to support the
deconstructive position said to arise from these critiques. Moreover,
if they are read as parodies, they are poor examples of the genre.

Finally, it is possible to argue that we should not be overly
concerned about the accuracy of Derrida's readings; it is his own
position, independent of the accuracy of his readings of Husserl and
Saussure, that ultimately is of interest. Evans closes this door too.
Since Derrida's philosophical positions are developed exclusively
through the critique of others--that is, since Derrida provides no
arguments for his positions independent of the deconstruction of the
authors he reads--the strength of his own position varies
proportionately to the strength of the reading he gives those authors.
At the very least, Evans argues, even if Derrida is not required to be
faithful to the Husserlian texts themselves, his position can be only so
strong as the position he deconstructs is plausible. According to
Evans, however, a figure who argues in the manner of
"Derrida's Husserl" is thoroughly implausible (p. 174).
Hence, Derrida's position cannot hold: "Setting up straw men
and blowing them down--even in the name of parody and fiction--simply
will not do the job" (p. 177). Derrida must--and in this I think
Evans's arguments are successful--be held with all seriousness to
the argumentative standards he sets for himself; as Evans has shown,
Derrida cannot meet those standards.

COPYRIGHT 1993 Philosophy Education Society, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.